The Clever Little Sharp

Onhwy61, I certain don't see myself as a critic of science, just as a critic of how much we know through science, at least thus far. Certainly good science is always prepared for a paradigm shift where we realized what we thought we knew was wrong.

TBG, I am looking forward to the mountain of mathematics to go with the CLC/CLS scientific paradigm shift. . . as far as I know, every time there has occurred such a scientific paradigm shift we have seen an extremely significant mathematical body to go with it. . . I am looking for Geoff Kait, and the various other new agers to bring forth their mathematical body of work and submit it to peer review. . . unless of course, this upcoming new age shift is sooooo 'shifty' that no math is required.

No mountain of math, usually an observation that is implausible. I am not saying by any means that the CLC is such, but your mockery is irresponsible for a scientist.

unless of course, this upcoming new age shift is sooooo 'shifty'

....remove the alphabets' Sixth letter from above sentence.... ;)

Zaikesman: WOW, where do it start? I feel the need to answer your questions, but I feel that you have read my previous answers and are not absorbing them. Maybe I’m assuming that my explanations are complete enough and they aren’t. In either case, I’ll do my best to qualify what I previously said.

Sure, sure. That's why you then went and bought a clock --but not even the
clock in question -- because you thought it was "bull". You're a debunker, only
a thrifty one.

I said this (that it was bull) to make it clear that I expected not to be writing a report at all. To write a report saying the clock didn’t work would have proven nothing other than to solidify my own feelings on the subject. After reading what little information and theory the CLC is based on, I also had a suspicion that there was no proprietary engineering being done to the CLC. I surmised that if there was going to be a difference at all, it would probably be because of the clock, not some modification to a clock. This would still not have proven whether the CLC actually works, but it would have closed the door on this subject for me. Yes, the cost of $10 was the incentive in giving it a try. I would never have tried the $200 CLC because I WASN”T convinced of the theory. I still don’t understand it. I also said previously that I was an open-minded individual. The combination of this and the $10 led to the test. For $10, I really don’t have a reason to hypnotize myself into an improvement. Besides, I could have returned it if the $10 was needed for Starbuck’s later. Again, your assertion points to some mental pre-determination as to whether each tweak will work or not before I try them. If this is the case, the clock should not have worked, yet it did. I really don’t understand what is difficult to understand here.

Let me ask you something Tgun5: Why is it so hard for you to admit to being human?

I believe that this whole exercise proves that I am human. I learned some time ago that our minds do not comprehend or understand most of what exists in the universe. I have no problem admitting that. I also know that since scientific and psychological theories are a product of the human mind, by nature they could be inherently flawed. This is a discussion that does not belong on an audio forum. The best argument for the fact that I am human is that I admitted that I was wrong about the clock. This is more than I can say for many who post here.

Guys really *do* think they can hear better than other people; really *do* think
they're not subject to the same pitfalls of the mind as the riff-raff; really *do* believe
they're somehow exceptional

Yes, I do believe that some people hear better than others and this includes audiophiles and unfortunately, musicians. You admit you are a musician so you must know that there are people who CAN sing and those BELIEVE they can sing. The difference between the two groups is that the ones who THINK they can sing can’t hear themselves. Then there are the ones that CAN sing that can’t hear whether they are flat or sharp. My experience is that many audiophiles do not hear as well as others. Probably to the same degree and ratio as good musicians to average musicians. The bad musicians equate to the individuals that hear a good system and wonder why we are audiophiles to begin with. I believe most audiophiles have the ability to hear for the most part otherwise they wouldn’t appreciate the hobby to begin with. We call great singers and musicians “trained”. Trained audiophiles know what to listen for and how to trust what there are hearing to get the results.

Normal standards of reason and scrutiny obviously can't apply to such an elite group,
on an aesthetic mission. To question them is to doubt them is to insult them. With their
expensive gear and the encouragement (or peer pressure) of this frequently delusionary
community of insecure neurotics, they've come to believe they're in a way superior to mere mortals

You have not insulted me by questioning me. Some of these statements are insults, but I forgive you. I do not believe I am superior to “mere mortals”, nor am I insecure as you suggest. I am just as flawed as the rest of us. However, I am absolutely secure in my hearing and the findings on the clock. I am also convinced that I have been blessed with the ability to discern differences in sound, their overall effect on the system, and the proper approach to improving the sound. This would be no different than being blessed with the ability to sing, which I cannot. In any case, these are God-given talents. According to your philosophy that everything needs to have a scientific explanation, God could not exist. Although unscientifically proven, this fact is undeniable, unarguable, and irrefutable in my mind. I guess this also proves I’m human. I certainly am glad to be a human that is sure that Jesus died to forgive my sins.

In any case, I thought my findings would be fun for some to experiment with and would somehow enhance the hobby. I’m glad that it made a difference for at least one member - Tarsando. This makes taking all the heat worthwhile.

I didn’t expect to be attacked to this degree, although one never knows here on Audiogon. The real fact that has been forgotten or mentioned is the impact my findings have on the CLC.

I don’t know that there is any point to take these arguments further as we are very far apart in our thinking and neither will persuade the other. If you do choose to take this further, I would be curious whether you have a list of components, parts, or tweaks in your mind that would, will, or do change the sound and to what degree. In other words, do you believe our “minds” will not allow us to really hear a change in preamps, amps, or speakers? Or whether this starts to be minimal with cartridges, tonearms, and wires? Can you discern the difference in capacitors, diodes, and resistors? Your arguments may in fact challenge whether audio component designers really can hear what they are trying to bring to market and whether these issues affect their design. It also brings the question to whether all audio designers do blind listening tests before deciding each component they use in state-of-the-art designs. I think we all know the answer to that. At what point IS the designer fooled by his own expectations and the hearing/psychology involved? Depending on your thoughts, this hobby may not match your ideals - or at least cause you frustration in dealing with passionate audio idiots like me.